User talk:Xyl 54/Archive June 2008-May 2010

Mare Nostrum
Yup - that looks like a good idea. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Agreed
Agreed. I apologize if my edit was perceived as arrogance, I will revert and try to restart a discussion. I am aware that things should be done by consensus, but this is not always easy in relatively irrelevant articles such as this one. At least now maybe interest in this matter will be rekindled, despite its probable rock-bottom traffic, I hope you agree that the article cannot remain in such a state. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't want my edits on this matter to be viewed in this "fanatic POV" light, so from now on I'll restrict my contributions to the article's talkpage. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.126.85 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry. My error.--87.28.126.85 (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "your error", Brunodam. Only one of those links leads to an edit I made, and since that's one in several months, I'd say I kept to what I said. Also, that one edit was a revert of another one of your POV IP socks, so I guess you might be able to forgive me? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Siegfried Freiherr von Forstner
That is a very interesting theory and may be the source of the confusion. Unfortunately I’m not in the position to resolve the issue. I can only point out that two Forstner, Siegfried Freiherr von Forstner (Kriegsmarine) and Rupert Forstner (Heer) were the only two Forstner known to have received the Knight’s Cross. My books (cited in the article) as well as the two links I found on the Internet also indicate that he died on the 22nd and not the 13th. From what I read here I surely don’t doubt the veracity of the 13th. I suggest that we take this topic to the talk page and leave the footnote in the article as is. Maybe other editors have more and additional insight. repeated atThewellman (talk) MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Italian Empire related AfD
Hi there - input would be appreciated at this Italian Empire related AfD. Thanks The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

UC 36
I always want to get an answer. I hope you fixed the sub listings, for anybody else like me who wondered! That was the real reason I asked. (If not, I'm still happy for an answer. ;D ) Thanks for the effort. You also answered a confusion from the ASW page you might want to fix, too. I've read the "first sunk" claim in Price, but was unaware of Kemp (gotta look for that...), so you can help settle that one there. Thanks again. TREKphiler  hit me ♠  21:21 & 21:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC) (And I should read the entire post before I reply...)


 * Not gremlins eating it, it's an archive bot. Thanks for the fixes.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  14:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

List of convoy codes
Feel free to remove the deletion tag if you're prepared to actually fix the article (a comment on talk is not enough). As is, it serves no purpose. Superm401 - Talk 18:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, in hand. Xyl 54 (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

U552
Hi, I was the original editor who had a problem with the anon that keeps changing this article, and I noticed today that he had again replaced the unsourced and unreliable version, a full two years since the problem began. Well done for trying to change it, but my previous efforts to stop him were all unsuccessful and eventually I gave up. If you have any suggestions on how to deal with the issue I'd be happy to assist.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for negotiating the sometimes bewildering beauraucracy that it takes to get these things to happen. It was that more than the reverts that caused me to give up originally. What I can't understand, is why this single purpose user is so determined to a) continue to insert this version of events over such an extended period b) so determined to have exactly this version in the article without compromise, and c) how they know so quickly that their changes have been removed (it makes me suspect that a registered user has the page watchlisted and signs out to make reverts, although I have never heard of any registered user causing this type of trouble on a u-boat article and I certainly couldn't begin to guess who it might be). Anyway, its sorted for now and your efforts are much appreciated, you need help with anything please let me know. --Jackyd101 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian submarine U-XXVII
Any chance of doing an article on Austro-Hungarian submarine U-XXVII? As I understand it she was the only Austro-Hungarian unit ever to sink a British warship, HMS Phoenix (1911). By the way, good work on the naming conventions for U-boats - that's a big job you're taking on! Good luck, Shem (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks; what have I got myself into? And yes, I'll be doing U-XXVII sometime: were you in a rush for it? Xyl 54 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion notices
I thank you for posting discussion notices for the U-boat naming discussions, but you might be more careful with the wording in the future to avoid accusations of WP:CANVASS. A neutrally worded notice that lets people know of the discussion without unduly influencing them beforehand is much preferable. The main talk page for WP Military History has many good examples of neutrally worded notices of things like peer reviews, A-Class reviews, and such, that are good examples to follow. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair point; sorry! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorting in categories: German submarines
All categories should be sorted in the same manner, so rather than modifying one category you should use the DEFAULTSORT template, for example:

Note that DEFAULTSORT uses a colon not a pipe. Thanks, Rich257 (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! So that's how it works! Thanks! Xyl 54 (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing red links from U-boat set indices
I saw you reworked German submarine U-1 a little bit, and noticed that you had removed some of the red links. The general consensus for WP:SHIPS set indices is to leave proper red links to encourage (1) creation of articles, and (2), creation at the proper name. It's also a good idea to follow the dab page guidelines in regard to piped links: don't pipe anything (except for formatting, like italics) so that readers can more easily find the article they are looking for. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Category sort keys
I noticed on German submarine U-768 that you had added a sortkey to an individual category. Might I suggest using for sortkeys like this in the future? That way when additional categories, like the type category (Category:Type VII U-boats), for example, will sort properly without the need to add or know the specific sortkey. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh. Never mind. Saw the discussion above. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Convoy article names
Are you happy with the latest proposal here? Your views would be appreciated. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Arctic convoys
I've just created HMS Mahratta (G23) which was involved in the Arctic Convoys, maybe there's some info there to give you a start on a few articles? Mjroots (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mjroots - please can you alter the title to HMS Mahratta (1942) to make it fit in with the rest of the articles on Tribal class and other destroyers. Unlike the United States Navy, which used their Hull sequence numbers for construction purposes and retained those letters throughout their lives, in the Royal Navy (and most other European navies) the pennant numbers were subject to change and were not a permanent part of a ship's name - the proper way to distinguish the various ships of the same name is by using the year of launch (in brackets). Rif Winfield (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Convoys
A challenge for you! What do you think about creating a template for convoys and a list of convoys? Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post: interesting suggestion; did you have something in mind? Xyl 54 (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (I’ve had a look at some templates; The problem I see is what to leave out.


 * There were about 300 convoy routes in WWII, each running maybe twice a month for years. Most weren’t attacked; we wouldn’t want to include them all, would we?


 * Of the ones that were attacked, Uboatnet reckons there were over 600. They don’t (surprise, surprise!) include those where the U-boats were driven off or destroyed without hitting anything; they also (less surprisingly) don’t include those attacked by aircraft, or surface vessels, or submarines of another navy. So it’s quite a big number we are looking at.


 * Still, give it a go! (he said guardedly!)(copied from User talk:Mjroots for continuance. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC) )


 * If it's OK we'll discuss this here to keep it in one place. Maybe to start with, the convoy template should just list those convoys that already have articles written. Suggest splitting by relevant sections- e.g. North Atlantic, Arctic, Malta, Africa. Display only need to be the actual convoy designator - e.g. HX207 etc. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I’ve had some thoughts about this template. I’ve compared it to the U-boat template, (which seems apposite) and added some categories. I’ve put them here if you want to take a look. I also think it’d be too big with all of them, so I’ve limited it to Atlantic/North Atlantic, and suggest we have separate templates for Arctic, Malta convoys. What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind me jumping into this conversation. Your draft version, Xyl 54, looks good and I think would be a fine template. I would like to agree with what you were saying in regard to all convoys. Since a good many convoys weathered no attacks of any kind, I would venture that most are not notable (in a Wikipedia sense, of course). Your template idea covers the notable convoys and has a link to the lists of convoys, so I don't think there's a need for this template or any other having a list of all of them, especially if most would be redlinked. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that; and, fair comment. Is there anything do you think that needs to go in? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing that jumps out at me. I think you have a good solid start. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 194.176.105.40 talk
Your name has come up as blocking this IP address (which is fine, BTW; the longer the better. I've just written to dougweller about the same thing). But the block you've used is messing with me accessing WP though my user account; do you know why? Or if it can be fixed, without unblocking? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry you were caught in the block -- I thought I'd found everyone who'd edited recently from the address.  I have given you IP block exemption so the block won't affect you.  Please see that page for more information and for cautions about how to use the privilege.  Once again, apologies for the inconvenience!   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 21:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have made the discussion pal, you have NOT
HAVE NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aj4444 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(returned to sender)

U-boat campaign/Battle of Atlantic
I have renamed back to U-boat_Campaign_(World_War_I) but this is also a discussion about scope as well as naming. Input at Talk:U-boat Campaign (World War I) would be most appreciated. Thanks and regards, Woody (talk) 09:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It needed discussion about a lot of things, not reverting. That never solves anything. I didn't invite Salamanzar, I presumed it would be on their watchlist. It might be a good idea to get their perspective on the issues at hand. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the word ventilation
Just in case you didn't want to 'check your facts', ventilation means-

ven·ti·la·tion (vntl-shn) n. 1. a. The replacement of stale or noxious air with fresh air. b. The mechanical system or equipment used to circulate air or to replace stale air with fresh air. 2. See respiration. 3. Aeration or oxygenation, as of blood.

I think you meant-

vent 1 (vnt) n. 1. A means of escape or release from confinement; an outlet: give vent to one's anger. 2. An opening permitting the escape of fumes, a liquid, a gas, or steam. 3. The small hole at the breech of a gun through which the charge is ignited. 4. Zoology The excretory opening of the digestive tract in animals such as birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. 5. Geology a. The opening of a volcano in the earth's crust. b. An opening on the ocean floor that emits hot water and dissolved minerals. v. vent·ed, vent·ing, vents v.tr. 1. To express (one's thoughts or feelings, for example), especially forcefully. 2. To release or discharge (steam, for example) through an opening. 3. To provide with a vent. v.intr. 1. To vent one's feelings or opinions. 2. To be released or discharged through an opening. 3. To rise to the surface of water to breathe. Used of a marine mammal.

86.137.134.53 (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

User:90.201.120.243
I think you'll find that IP is a now blocked vandal who has been doing that on literally hundreds of articles. Regards, Justin talk 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, he changed IP address, the previous spree used 90.201.120.30. Regards, Justin talk 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would this be an AN/I candidate? Its not normal vandalism.  Do you have rollback? Justin talk 20:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I went nuclear and went straight to AN/I, may save some work. I also asked for rollback, may help.  Justin talk 20:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Got rollback added and undid all those edits, makes it a cinch. You can always ask for the same.  Regards.  Justin talk 21:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Barfleur
Hmm, forgetting for a moment the Mafiaesque tone of your message, I hardly see what "compromise" I've violated: the French tactical victory, which is attested by (generally) some of the more recent and reliable sources, is barred from the results; while "Allied strategic victory" makes a double appearance: once at Barfleur and once more at Barfleur-La Hogue (apart from the phantom invasion scare, the "Allied victory" is derived solely from the fact that the retreat from Barfleur led to disaster at La Hogue. There being a separate article for the latter engagement, you're essentially claiming victory twice over for the same action, a dubious and cynical arrangement to say the least.)

It strikes me that any sort of reasonable compromise would involve both the French and Allied claims to victory (to say nothing of citations from French historical literature, which is conspicuously absent from these pages). What we have right now is a concession to your terms; concessions across the board. But you're right, there's no need for a parallel debate; if need be I'll reply to your points on the appropriate Talk page. Thanks for the link. Albrecht (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

German technology
The claim

"And there's no doubt that Germany was technologically two steps ahead of the rest of the world"

how is that justified?

Regiment moves
Hi there. I note you've just moved a large number of British regiments from a "full title" form (eg, 116th (Perthshire Highlanders) Regiment of Foot) to a short form (116th Regiment of Foot (1793)), citing consistency.

For what it's worth, I created almost all of these pages (or the redlinks to them) some time ago, and the short form was something I actively tried to avoid in favour of a full title wherever possible - the (1793) was a last resort when I needed to disambiguate, not intended as a standard suffix. It's certainly a bit moot on things like 131st Regiment of Foot (1793), which'll never have anything to disambiguate it against.

Are you particularly attached to these changes, or would you mind if I moved them back? I do think the full descriptive title, where possible, is better - it certainly seems more interesting! - and it fits with the way we title the more long-lived numbered regiments, which usually have the name or the suffix as well as the basic "Nth Regiment". Shimgray | talk | 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ideally, they'd all have "proper names", and be disambiguated that way; the problem was that some never got given them, as far as I could tell, so I was left having to put something after the name, and the date of formation - like we do for ships - seemed the best bet. (Given the weird parenthetical suffixes they sometimes had, anything in words ran the risk of being interpreted as part of the actual name...)
 * There is a British milhist task force, but it's a bit dormant. We could try kickstarting something there, though, if you'd like... there are a couple of editors working on this end of things.
 * As to the hostilities-only thing, for what it's worth, my understanding is that these regiments were usually conceptually the same as the "permanent" regiments - raised in the same way, taken into service in the same way, liable for duty in the same way, etc. They became hostilities-only in retrospect, by dint of being one of the ones disbanded after the war was over, rather than having been intended to serve for two or three or four years and then fold - had the size of the postwar establishment been different, they could well have survived, or some of the higher "permanent" ones could have been disbanded.
 * I'm off to bed, but I'll give this a bit of thought tomorrow - I can certainly see some justification for a standard disambiguator. Shimgray | talk | 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I've not come up with much of a solution yet, I'm afraid... In no particular order:
 * Yes, dab pages are great. I'd created a set already - see, eg, 105th Regiment of Foot - but I stalled somewhere around 95 (working backwards), and since the marvellous regiments.org went down it's been hard to pull them together. One of them got merged - 118th Regiment of Foot - but personally I'd prefer to keep them as separate pages; they are distinct, and I think it can be a bit confusing to bundle them together under one heading as it implies a direct "line of descent" between them. I can see reasons for amalgamation, though (the eternal battle-cry of the MOD ;-)). My old checklist is at User:Shimgray/Regiments.
 * The pre-1881 and post-1881 regiments aren't that distinct, remember. While there was a major sea-change in 1881, the first twenty-five line regiments (which all had two battalions) just got a new name and didn't get amalgamated; with a couple of exceptions, our articles on these regiments deal with them in one lump right through from the 17th century to their final amalgamation in the late 20th. I think the seperate categorisation might be a bit confusing and imply more of a difference than there actually was.
 * I do agree it'd be good to sort all these out, though! I did a second checklist a while back for all the Scottish/English/Welsh regiments, but haven't got around to the Irish ones yet - User:Shimgray/Regiments 2.
 * So, where does this leave us? We need to:
 * decide what to do with the "minor" numbered regiments, generally speaking
 * get the (disambiguation or one-list-for-all) pages for them in placed and filled up
 * get the articles for all the *other* numbered regiments - the ones which survived to 1881 - moved into place, and gaps or unhelpful redirects fixed up.
 * Thoughts? If we can hash the details out now, it'll stop us treading on each other's toes... Shimgray | talk | 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I see your point about merging (as with 118th); I agree, separate pages (even as a bunch of stubs) would be preferable (I’ve never seen the fun of merging). But if the information is limited to a sentence (as with 105th, and the ship pages I mentioned) it’d be OK. And I think the dab pages should have a disband date as well as the formation date, where appropriate, to clarify the matter.
 * If you are unhappy about the re-categorizing, fair enough, we can leave that. I was minded to put them in strict numerical order, though; I think it can be done using [[Category: xx|01 etc, or {{defaultsort. What do you reckon?
 * And yes, the regiment.org site was brilliant; do you know what happened to it? My library has a pile of books on the subject, but I can’t get there just yet. I'll have a browse when I get the chance.
 * Your checklist reminded me of some lineages I saw (example) Did you do them? I had thought a date line would help there (across the top, to show the time-scale) but I couldn’t figure out how to do it.The editing was hideously complicated; maybe that was intentional!
 * I understand about the continuity aspect for the first 25 (I was probably focusing on the Kings, which is on three pretty big pages ; it’d be over 130 Mb if it was all in one. OTOH the 4th, which is as old (older!), is just 6Mb; and most of that is a list of colonels.
 * So if it's 26 to 105-ish that need looking at, and as examples are always easier to see, I’ve had a look at the first one. I’ve done a bit of editing (most of it was there already) so now theres
 * 26th Regiment of Foot which redirects to
 * 26th (Cameronian) Regiment of Foot (from 1689)
 * 90th Regiment of Foot, a dab page with 2 redlinks and a link to
 * 90th Regiment of Foot (Perthshire Volunteers) (from 1794)
 * and Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) (post 1881)
 * That's the layout I had in mind; what do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's it exactly! The only thing I'm swithering about is quite what to do with the disambiguations. I'm tempted to redirect NNth Regiment to the "main" one for all the regiments which survived up to 1881 - which we can safely assume is the newest one - and put their disambiguation at NNth (disambiguation). For the rest (110-124), go straight to a disambiguation or "complete set" page, as for the 90th above.
 * The 8th, 9th and 10th all have "seperate" pages for their pre-1881 incarnations, which is something to think about - they may need merging. Note that the third one for the King's should be a seperate page anyway - it's a new creation by merging two seperate regiments.
 * Other points - a) I didn't do those lineage charts; they're useful, but as you say pretty hard to work with; b) defaultsort would be excellent, I have just been too lazy to do it.
 * I've put a complete list of the "1881 and after" regimental lineages up at User:Shimgray/Regiments 2, if you'd like that to work from; the main list of all numbered regiments will probably require digging through an archive of regiments.org, and I'll get cracking on it soon. We'll need more accessible sources for the articles themselves, but as a handlist it'll work fine for now, I think. How's this lot sound? Shimgray | talk | 19:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds OK; redirecting NNth Regiment to “main”- I can see the point, but most of them are at NNth Regt currently (26 to 105, anyway). Is it worth checking them, and filling the gaps, first, before thinking about moving them? (or is it 110? I’m rusty)
 * Likewise the 2 Btn bodies; I’d have gone the other way, as they seem too big otherwise. (OTOH I’ve looked at a couple and they seem decidedly thin) Can we put that to one side, too, for now?
 * Your list at Regiments2 is handy; what do the symbols mean?
 * I’ll try and dig some books up: you mentioned an archive fro regiment.org; do you have access to one? That would be handy.
 * If defaultsort is OK we could make a start on that (if I can sort out how it works). We could start at either end and work in, if that’d make things clearer. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I've made a start on the defaultsorts; can you look at the category? what do you think?


 * 105th was where I'd worked back to with disambiguation pages; 110th is the highest that survived to 1881. (ie, everything higher than 110 was disbanded without amalgamation). The symbols on Regiments2 show - all okay, page covers right thing; note, might need some working on; cross, here we have a problem. (page exists but is redirected to successor). I think what I'll do is expand the numerical index in the same way - show all the articles hanging off each one and what their status is, so we can see the whole lot at a glance.
 * Defaultsort is good, but I don't think we need to categorise the disambiguation pages (eg 90th Regiment of Foot) - it makes it all a bit cluttered. I'm not sure about the 1st to 25th redirects - this does sort of mean we're counting the articles twice. hmm.
 * As for an archive, nothing more complicated than archive.org! I've got this on the to-do list, and I'll start cracking on it when I've a chance. Thanks for your help so far! Shimgray | talk | 14:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)
Having looked at it again, I’m inclined to think you’re right about the 8th 9th and 10th; they’d probably sit better merged to the pages on their post 1881 titles. We could just live with a 90 Mb page on 8th Liverpool.

I’m also thinking the redirects to 26-110 shouldn’t be in the category; they fall nicely into numerical order with 1-25 clustered together, and further redirects would clutter it up again. But I can see the point of having 1-25 in the category; it completes the numerical list.

I moved the numbered Gurkha regiments to “G” so they’re all together; what do you think about doing the same for the other names with numbers in? (East Anglians for example)? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To update this:


 * I've checked the RoF pages 1-25; they all re-direct now to the regiment page (the 22nd Regiment of Foot didn't so I fixed it, and made a 22nd Regiment page to take the deleted content.


 * I've also checked 26-50; they all redirected to the associated number/name regt, except 33rd (I've left a note on the talkpage there), the 45th (fixed, and put this on the talkpage) and the 49th (fixed).


 * There's a bunch of pages that need work (infoboxes, expanding a bit) but I've not touched that yet. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Marvellous! I have some time off coming up, so I'll get my half of the deal done :-)
 * As regards the Gurkha regiments, since these are clearly distinguishable from the "British" regiments - their own number scheme, recruiting, etc - would it be worth splitting these out into a separate category anyway?
 * Finally, as regards the 33rd/76th, I've previously tried to shift those around (and seperate out the 76th incarnations) but didn't have much luck - see notes on the 76th talkpage. Shimgray | talk | 11:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Going back to your first comment - the East Anglians (I assume you mean the 1960s ones) should probably be grouped together, but the "foot" regiments should stay in sequence, I think. Shimgray | talk | 11:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I’ve checked 50 to 60;
 * They were mostly either redirects or are dab pages, but I’ve expanded 51st and 58th into articles, as they went to the post-1881 regt before.
 * Interestingly, some of them (like 53, 54, and 55 had a redirect and a dab (eg 53 and 53 (dab). I don’t know how good an idea that is. It might make for a faster search, but it’s a lot of extra pages.
 * I’ve categorized the East Anglians, so they are in “E” now; it might make things a bit clearer. And yes, I was aiming to have just the Foot regts all together somewhere.
 * As for a category for the Gurkhas; there is one already (see here, we could always add it as a sub-cat and delete them from the main category. But we’d need to do it throughout, they’re included in the other British Army categorys as well (and it feels a bit churlish… )
 * Anyway, that’s it. And so to bed… Xyl 54 (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hihi. What I've been looking at - you can see a bit of a mishmash of notes-to-self here - is setting matters up so that "Xth Regiment of Foot" goes to the "primary" user of that name (ie, the most recent one, usually at something like "Xth (Loamshire) Regiment of Foot"), and then it has a headnote directing back to "Xth Regiment of Foot (disambiguation)". In my experience, almost all the inbound links tend to be for the most recent version.
 * Ones marked "OK" on that list are cases where I've moved the disambig and checked the basic number redirects to the most recent unit and not the disambig. Feel free to annotate it! Shimgray | talk | 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A big swathe done today - we now have correctly functioning redirects and comprehensive disambiguation pages for everything except the 8th, 9th and 10th (these discussed already), the 72nd, 76th, 83rd, 85th, 91st, 93rd-96th, and finally the 118th (a bit of complicated history there). I'll get the bulk of the rest done tomorrow, hopefully.
 * If you're interested in writing a couple more stubs, the 83rd, 85th and 94th all just have redirects pointing to the post-1881 regiment and are in need of placeholder articles. Shimgray | talk | 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Marvellous, thanks! Shimgray | talk | 19:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you're back! With the exception of a couple of legacy cases, I think we got the whole lot sorted out - definitely a good foundation for someone to build on in future. Shimgray | talk | 19:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space
Hey there Xyl 54, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Xyl 54/Sandbox 3. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of images removed today here


 * Shut off the bot here


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

German auxiliary cruiser Atlantis
rather than get involve with you in such an idiotic change, i'll just take it to the community. --emerson7 04:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Que?Xyl 54 (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Lady of Mann
I've suggested again to JamesSteamPacket that he files a RM, and to notify WT:SHIPS. I can see the arguments on both sides here - old name = most significant service vs new name = ship in active service. I generally lean towards articles about active ships being under that name, but each case is on its own merits. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)